(02-10-2015 10:26 PM)Reltzik Wrote: Except for the mathematics of special relativity, which IS subjective, and also works from every subjective frame of reference because there is no objective one.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it." - A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner

That doesn't make sense to me. Why is a person's beliefs that are shaped by their personal experiences, whether real or imagined, subjected to a null hypothesis?

Why are these experiences subjected to outside scrutiny as to whether or not that person's believed evidence should not be seen, on a personal front, as evidence?

To be clear, I'm not saying that outside scrutiny should not be subjected to the null hypothesis, I'm saying how can they subject themselves to it if they don't meet the criterion of it?

And that being said, if someone admits to believing in something unfalsifiable via personal anecdotes or experiences, then how can the null hypothesis apply to them since it does not gauge the means in which their beliefs are founded?

(02-10-2015 02:54 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote: If the universe is indeed proven to be at its capacity as we perceive it at this time then an outside entity wouldn't be needed. That is not the case though as many things and understandings lack the crucial connecting pieces that would make them otherwise complete, comprehensive, and insistent on the lack of further evidence. Y'all call it God of the gaps. In doing so you acknowledge the holes in your singular disconnected hypothesies. In effect making the spot for the hypothesis that I argue about.

Shortly after the above was posted, assault and battery charges were filed by the English language.

(02-10-2015 11:09 PM)kingschosen Wrote: And that being said, if someone admits to believing in something unfalsifiable via personal anecdotes or experiences, then how can the null hypothesis apply to them since it does not gauge the means in which their beliefs are founded?

In pops' case, it's all about the feels, and he's trying to pass those off as scientific; of course it is thus subject to the same scrutiny as any other scientific inquiry. If he's not trying to pass his feels off as supported by QM (which is what he has been trying to do) then no worries.

(02-10-2015 11:09 PM)kingschosen Wrote: That doesn't make sense to me. Why is a person's beliefs that are shaped by their personal experiences, whether real or imagined, subjected to a null hypothesis?

Why are these experiences subjected to outside scrutiny as to whether or not that person's believed evidence should not be seen, on a personal front, as evidence?

Well, you can always just assume that a certain sensory input is attached to a particular phenomena; but that certainly doesn't make it evidently true, nor does that mean anyone else is obliged to take your incredulous personal experience seriously.

If however you are more concerned with evaluating your experiences and attempting to weed out biases, false positives, and even your own flawed mis-remembering of your own mis-perceptions; then you would do well to evaluate them against the null hypothesis.

(02-10-2015 11:09 PM)kingschosen Wrote: To be clear, I'm not saying that outside scrutiny should not be subjected to the null hypothesis, I'm saying how can they subject themselves to it if they don't meet the criterion of it?

Well, what makes you so sure you 'know' what that criteria even is, if you yourself haven't sufficiently applied the null hypothesis in the first place?

(02-10-2015 11:09 PM)kingschosen Wrote: And that being said, if someone admits to believing in something unfalsifiable via personal anecdotes or experiences, then how can the null hypothesis apply to them since it does not gauge the means in which their beliefs are founded?

You don't have to submit yourself to the null hypothesis. But to those who do value what is evidently true, your personal, unverifiable, subjective experiences holds no weight. Your personal experience of god holds as much value as pop's experience of... well... whatever the fuck he's currently incoherently rambling about at the moment.

(02-10-2015 11:09 PM)kingschosen Wrote: That doesn't make sense to me. Why is a person's beliefs that are shaped by their personal experiences, whether real or imagined, subjected to a null hypothesis?

Why are these experiences subjected to outside scrutiny as to whether or not that person's believed evidence should not be seen, on a personal front, as evidence?

Presumably because you want to know whether or not those beliefs are actually true - or at least if they're rational, which is almost always the same thing and always always the only choice that makes any real, logical sense.

You're free to be irrational if you wish, but if you have any interest in actually understanding reality, it's rationality or nothing. Nothing else works.

(02-10-2015 11:09 PM)kingschosen Wrote: To be clear, I'm not saying that outside scrutiny should not be subjected to the null hypothesis, I'm saying how can they subject themselves to it if they don't meet the criterion of it?

This does not parse. I'm not sure that you really understand what the null hypothesis is, exactly, because this question makes no sense. I cannot answer it.

(02-10-2015 11:09 PM)kingschosen Wrote: And that being said, if someone admits to believing in something unfalsifiable via personal anecdotes or experiences, then how can the null hypothesis apply to them since it does not gauge the means in which their beliefs are founded?

Again, you are free to be as irrational as you like.

This means that you are going to end up believing in a lot of very silly, untrue things, of course, because rationality is the only epistemological system that actually works. But there is no law that says you have to use it, any more than there is a law that says you have to be capable of solving high-end differential calculus problems.

You'll get the wrong answer, but if you think feels are more important than reals, well, that's really up to you.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it." - A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner

(04-10-2015 02:51 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote: To attest that feelings emotions and conscience aren't significant parts of reality then you are sorely mistaken.

You're a dumbshit.

Feelings and emotions are real, and are an important part of our lives.

But emotions and feelings do not correlate to truth. Believing something is true doesn't make it true, even if it makes you feel really good when you think so.

Now go away, the adults are trying to have a conversation here.

I never said that feelings alone constituted truth. Why don't you try to convey messages without insulting people? You don't have to it's just a suggestion I'm going to sleep it's nearly 4 in the morning here.